In the ditch with the wrigglers

De Void decided to skip Tuesday night’s $20 streaming fee for the “Roswell Alien Slides” unveiling in Mexico City, not because of a feared repeat of the Pacquiao-Mayweather ripoff, but because — with the possible exception of self-inflicted whoopsie-daisies like Gary Hart and the “Monkey Business” — photos are fairly shabby stand-ins for reality these days. When Roswell author/researcher Tom Carey announced to an American University audience last November that the closely guarded Kodachrome pix were the “smoking gun” establishing the ET origins of the enduring 1947 controversy, De Void damn near spazzed. This one wasn’t going to have a happy ending even if Robert Oppenheimer and Leslie Groves were in the photos flashing finger horns behind the mystery subject.

People began weighing in on this thing, sight unseen, nearly two years ago, fussing and name-calling with the petulance of spurned children, demanding access, leads, phone numbers and connections, as if their premature uninformed opinions and efforts actually mattered. Parades of egos and omniscience, a lot like religion. Anyhow, bottom line, missed the unveiling, didn’t attend, didn’t stream it. Come on — two slides from 68 years ago, venue/context unknown, the owner/presumed photographer is dead. No papers, no diaries. Just two slides forgotten in an attic. But amped up with Carey’s promise of a “smoking gun.”

If you haven’t kept up on how it all went down on Tuesday night, you’ve clearly stumbled onto De Void by accident. No reason to rehash; Alejandro Rojas at “Open Minds” and John Greenewald at “The Black Vault” have written all I care to know about it anymore. And if, as appears to be the case, the subject of the “smoking gun” — this trifle, this cupcake that incurred so much fervor among so many — really was a little museum-display mummy, it doesn’t even rise to the level of disappointment. It’s just skank, that’s it, one more clown car upside down in a ditch littered with cigarette butts, empty Durex wrappers, chicken bones and larval wrigglers. At least the “Alien Autopsy” hoax of 1995 was intentional, with a sizable profit motivation. (De Void seriously really sincerely wants to believe the “Roswell Alien Slides” team was so incompetent it simply missed what looks like the mummy’s display label in the foreground.) At least “Alien Autopsy” had a touch of drama and took longer than 24 hours to figure out. Remember how it suckered the Fox network, how it aired simultaneously on multiple continents and provoked Time magazine — four months after its release — into saying the fauxdoc had started debates “with an intensity not lavished on any home movie since the Zapruder film”?

Twenty years later, all we get is “Roswell Alien Slides” skank. And the team that connected the dots with a not totally-implausible back story ultimately, by all appearances, tripped up on wishful thinking — and in a gambit that wouldn’t have proven a thing about Roswell one way or another, even if there had been more ambiguity. There’s not even a lesson to take home from this mess. Just a reiteration of what we’ve known forever: Allow some photos to speak for themselves, even if — as Roseanne Rosannadanna once said — “ya don’t know WHAT it is.”

I think there is, Billy: Don’t keep potential evidence to yourself for 2 years, feeding tidbits to the UFO world so they can all work themselves into a frenzy of hypothesized conclusions. Instead, put said potential evidence to the hivemind of the internet, solve the mystery within 24 hours, and save everyone time, embarrassment, and, yourself, loss of credibility and any possibility that anyone will ever hand over to you any *real* UFO evidence in the future.

@albert @freeman A huge aspect of the problem is access to grant money. As long as the National Science Foundation refuses to recognize UAPs as a legitimate subject for scientific research, mainstream scientists trying to compete for dwindling funds will avoid the topic like the plague…(publicly, anyway.)

@albert: Actually, I do blame them, up to a point. Yes, it’s unfair to expect a professional to potentially damage the possibility of his or her future advancement, but they have chosen science and they have a duty to discovery (similar to a duty of care). If a scientist is expected to have integrity and to present honest and accurate research, then dismissing or ignoring information is similar to a lie of omission. McDonald had the odd run-in with Hynek over this before Hynek did his u-turn.

@freeman69,
I don’t want to get into another discussion on the ‘peer review’ system, except to say that it’s broken, it’s known to be broken, and nothing is going to change it, because its purpose is to preserve the paradigm. Like our grand jury system.
.
“…For the most part, the American anthropologists we contacted did not want to even look at the slides when they learned that they might be “UFO-related.” Those who did, however, did so “off the record.”…” – Tom Carey, from K Randles blog.
.
Scientists, certainly in the US, avoid anything UFO-related like the plague. Can you blame them?
.
…

There is a certain naivete that appears in many comments from the debunking side: that which paints the ‘mainstream’ as sugar and spice and all things nice.
Peer review journals are a form of censorship because they filter out anything from academia deemed unpalatable (as well as poorly researched) and the general public are presented with ‘cleaned-up’ image of the scientific fields. Science is messy and scientists make mistakes. This is how it works. However, this doesn’t prevent credentialed scientists and other professionals from writing forwards and reviews of UFO-related books.
What I find bizarre is when un-credentialed individuals ‘critique’ an author and the critic assumes his or her opinions carry any significant weight. Who needs research when common sense is the ultimate arbiter?

@Ufobservationist, yes I think there’s a hint of truth to the accusation Dolan needs to show better discernment between good sources and bad sources as was argued in the otherwise illiterate article you linked to. In general, however, I would advice you: if a blogger can’t spell, and can’t use a comma, then perhaps you should not take the ideas of that blogger very seriously. As Mark Twain might have said, grammar ain’t that hard. Also, your comments are mean-spirited and “observationist” is a not a word.

i expect this from maussan. i expect this from schmitt. i expect this from carey. they are desperate. but dolan i did not but he did what he did and that now lives on a growing list of dolan lameness. im moving on from even considering reading a dolan book or anything connected with him.

In 2011, Lance in this blog erroneously referred to a UFO researcher as a creationist, which provoked the very real threat of a libel suit. To his credit, Lance apologized and said he would no longer post on this site. I thought that was a welcome and classy move to make. Suddenly, without warning, he’s back with his “UFO religion” and “dullard believers” clichés and blowing the whistle on what he calls my “pro-UFO bias.” Lance doesn’t have any biases, Liam. Just concede that he’s a masterful interlocutor and save yourself a lot of aggravation.

Actually what happened from day one (and really I don’t know that much backlash happened prior to the announcement of the event very early this year) was that skeptics (and believers as well) responded to some of the claims made by the slide hucksters that WERE testable prior to actually seeing the slides.

And I listed some of those above.
They weren’t uninformed and many were just common sense. Those objections were well-founded.

I’m not upset. But your and Billy’s characterization of those who objected as being childlike and uninformed is sadly a sign of blindness caused by your own UFO religion. And that blindness is how silly spectacles like this happen over and over as dullard believers gape on.

Although I am well sick of the Roswell Slides, I do want to defend Richard Dolan, whose books are important. I don’t think Dolan deserves equal ridicule along with the others involved. Dolan, to my understanding, attended as an open-minded researcher who was curious and hopeful that the slides might reveal something new. To throw his name into the ring of fire, among the forever damned, seems unfair considering he is one of our best ambassadors. (God knows we are in need of decent ambassadors.) Anyway here’s an excerpt from what Dolan said just before the Mexican fiasco.

“I have never presumed that I am in a position to critique the way this has been handled by the people involved. It’s never been my business or concern. Like most others following this, I have held the position that we can better make a decision about everything once the information is available for everyone. Until then, I have not seen the point of supporting or dismissing them — at least not to excess. In a case like this, I see nothing wrong with (A) arguing the slides are of potential significance and warrant greater study and investigation, and (B) arguing that caution and skepticism remains in order.”

Lance, Billy certainly doesn’t need me to defend him. Still, you’re not comprehending that he seems to have been talking about not only skeptics, but the various pro-UFO factions as well. (Pro-ETH vs. pro-EDH, etc.) Writing back then, and now.
I’d hope we all could agree that “weighing in on this thing, sight unseen, nearly two years ago” demonstrates the very opposite of objective analysis. The opinions of ANYONE back then as to these slides were uninformed. It couldn’t possibly have been otherwise, given that the slides weren’t available. (Something else that most pro-UFO camps objected to.)
I doubt you’re advocating that people offer uninformed opinions, right? So I’m not sure what your issue is. The slides are now out, and a large majority of even the pro-UFO people are highly critical of them. Most, including Billy, seemed highly skeptical from day one. So really, what’s the problem?
Are you upset that people didn’t listen to you from day one? There’s a good reason….
The approach that was taken here by most — not immediately accepting the uninformed arguments of anyone — is really only an issue to a person like you who thinks he KNOWS, up front, that the Roswell slides couldn’t possibly have been legitimate… since you know, up front, that UFOs can’t possibly be real. A very Menzelian type of ‘analysis’.
Is it possible that you are the one being blinded UFO bias? I think so.

@freeman69,
C2C is is well known as a public forum for anyone to say anything. As far as I’m concerned, appearance on C2C has no bearing on credibility. Notariety perhaps.
.
@Lance,
In the passage you quoted, Billy’s talking about what started years ago. That the furor didn’t subside until recently is telling.
.
Not being as charitable as Billy, I don’t see how the Not Roswell Slides Team could have been hoodwinked so easily (and I believe you don’t either), so I tend to think this snowball had lots of help rolling down the hill. The question is: How long does one wait before abandoning ship? Those who waited too long have gone down with it. The Sea of Publicity is a cruel mistress, indeed, and an unforgiving one.
.
…

“People began weighing in on this thing, sight unseen, nearly two years ago, fussing and name-calling with the petulance of spurned children, demanding access, leads, phone numbers and connections, as if their premature uninformed opinions and efforts actually mattered. ”

This is exactly what the slide hucksters were saying about critics at the time. That Billy is still saying it (especially after what we now know) goes us a snapshot of why UFO “research” isn’t.

Lance said: “Billy, by blaming the folks who made legitimate complaints about the narrative that the slide hucksters were selling….” But where exactly was Billy “blaming” those folks? I’ve just not seen that. Many, many pro-UFO people have been extremely skeptical of and critical of this whole Roswell slide mess from the beginning. It’s been a long time since Maussan has been considered trustworthy.

The names calling mostly came from within the slides huckster team against folks who were calling them on their testable claims (for instance):

1. You can’t precisely date when a photo was taken as they claimed.
2. That wasn’t Bernard Ray standing with the president, it was the president’s brother.
3. The body in the slide that they inadvertently leaked looked an awful lot like a mummy.
4. Maussan is likely the least credible way to share supposedly earth-shattering news.

Billy, by blaming the folks who made legitimate complaints about the narrative that the slide hucksters were selling, you reveal your Pro-UFO bias. It’s the same kind of bias that allows such silly nonsense to thrive.

@albert: ‘The community is through with them.’ – where did that come from? Dolan appeared on a recent C2C where he said (paraphrasing) that individuals need to be allowed to investigate these things without being labelled.
Should researchers be ‘sent to Coventry’ for being invited to the wrong conferences?
After a number of years of reading around this subject I lean towards the ETH (but only if it includes effective FTL travel). When I read my own conclusions I don’t know whether to give myself the time of day – it’s so ‘out there’. The charlatans and liars need to be unmasked, but everyone is human. Cut these guys some slack.

@Bill Pilgrim,
.
Re: Maussan, Carey, Schmitt, and Dolan. Their proverbial, collective goose is certainly cooked after this fiasco. From what I’ve read, it’ll be a cold day in Hell before anyone gives these guys the time of day. Even the MSM might have a problem with ’em. The ‘community’ is through with ’em.
.
…

@Joe… That’s one way of looking at it, but methinks you’re being too hard on the viewership. As far as I know, Jaime Mausson is not generally regarded as a scammer or sensationalist, and has produced some creditable UFO investigative reports over the years. With that for background, plus some of the well known names in ufology involved, it’s understandable the ‘cadaver slides’ presentation would attract a significant viewership.
If you want to blame someone, turn your ire to the ufo rock stars who participated in this without doing more rigorous due diligence.

@Bill Pilgrim
Sounds as if you are blaming the official secrecy of lies and deception by public officials to embolden the fakers- which affords the charlatans an opportunity to run with their contrived scenarios and presentations. I think blame here rests solely with the viewership for getting snookered into charades like this. It further cements the public officials’ stand- and episodes like this will be expediently invoked when citizens demand more accountability from their governments.

The whole circus was yet another example of the kind of wild speculations and claims that inevitably arise when a subject (in this case the UFO/ET phenomenon) is hidden in a labyrinth of secrecy, denial and deception by official agencies, while an increasing percentage of the citizenry know by their own experiences that something extraordinary is happening in our world. They will sometimes latch on to anything that might validate their experiences, even when it pushes way past the boundaries of plausibility.
Lies beget mistrust and suspicion. Mistrust and suspicion beget theories or claims that X, Y, or Z phenomena prove we are being lied to.

@ gino Shay
1. If it is too good to be true, it probably is (n’t)
2.I see a generation gap here. The leggy blonde is Donna Rice, who brought down the presidential aspirations of Gary Hart and now is married to a millionaire and an advocate for some type of social program.
3.I recall a BC blog in February on this Mausson/Carey presentation to the effect: “Moving on to other matters”. Only thing that bothers me was the decision by John Weiskopf, the American University media professor, to include Carey in the 11/14 symposium on UFO’s- which included reputable credible guests. His rationale for inclusion was provided (to appease his students)
4.How can one take the wind out of the sales (no pun intended) for the viewers who paid a good buck for the stream?? This blog has no legitimate right to set the viewers up for disappointment before the presentation. LOL!!!

This is exactly the kind of B.S which continuously brings the subject down a few notches and provides the debunkers a field day for further excoriation of the topic.

@Billy,
My condolences for your $20 loss. Maybe you can write it off as a business expense. If they ask what kind of business expense, just say ‘monkey business’.
.
Even Roswell TBs like Kevin Randle & Stan Friedman (and no doubt others) distanced themselves from this escapade.
.
Wonder how much the promoters made on this?
.
…